Jigfinity, the Jigsaw Logic Puzzle

ABSTRACT

A deductive reasoning puzzle implementing a polyform set of jigsaw-styled puzzle pieces, to be arranged via matching according to constraints set forth in given schematic cards. Best solved through a systematic process of elimination. Serves educational, developmental, and entertainment purposes.

INVENTION TYPE

“Puzzles” as a form of entertainment, cognitive testing, or mentalexercise refers, in the broadest sense, to any challenge requiring theexertion of mental faculties. The classification of the types of puzzlesin existence are therefore as extensive as the breadth of humancognitive function itself. To name only a few of the more prominentcategories as mere examples, popular types of puzzles may be linguisticin nature (such as crosswords or Jumbles), require deductive reasoning(such as Sudoku or Perplexors), or consist of a visual-spatial task,such as the classic jigsaw puzzle.

The invention herein described consists of a deductive reasoningchallenge which employs physical manipulatives that are to be arrangedspatially via a sequential process of elimination and according to givenconstraints communicated on schematic cards. Deductive reasoning puzzlesemploying physical manipulatives are popular in both the art ofpuzzle-making as well as among their consuming enthusiasts. Examples ofthis type of puzzle include Rush Hour and River Crossing as marketed bythe company Thinkfun.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

An additional piece of information pertinent to the present invention isthe concept of “polyforms” in puzzle design. A polyform is a set ofshapes which together represent all of the possible permutations orcombinations of a finite number of geometric features given certaindesign constraints. An example of a classic polyform puzzle is that ofTetris, which combines 4 squares adjacent to each other eitherhorizontally or vertically, but not diagonally unless there is ahorizontal or vertical square connecting the diagonal squares. Thesecombinations are presented to the player of the puzzle who then mustorganize them in the most spatially economical way he or she is capableof, avoiding empty spaces between the puzzle pieces, while seeking tocompletely “fill” rows within a given playing field with squares fromone side to the other.

UTILITY OF INVENTION

While it is sufficient to state the long accepted educational andcultural entertainment value and benefits of puzzles in general asfulfilling the requirement of usefulness for invention patentability,additional context is noteworthy. At the time of initial patentapplication for the present invention, year 2020, a global pandemic hasled to dramatic economic fluctuations worldwide, some predictable andsome unexpected. One such trend includes a notable increase in puzzlesales in general, presumably correlating with an increase in consumersseeking home-based entertainment in consequence of a general increase inconsumer time off work and therefore increased leisure opportunitylimited in scope due to physical distancing practices enacted to fightthe pandemic. A considerable population exists for whom puzzles satisfythis given need.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INVENTION

The core concept of the present invention will be described in theclaims section of this application for the purpose of clarifyingprecisely what is being patented, but the drawings and technicaldescriptions will contain embellishments and features which areextraneous to the core concept. They are nonetheless included in thedescription and figures for the sake of demonstrating the productionpossibilities and marketability of the puzzle invention itself, as wellas to help the reader conceptualize the invention.

Puzzle Components:

-   -   1. Ten puzzle piece manipulatives comprising a jigsaw polyform        set (see FIGS. 1 and 2 ).    -   2. A base for the puzzle which acts as a working space for        attempting solutions (see FIG. 3 ), and a cover for storage        purposes (see FIG. 4 ).    -   3. A set of schematics which serve as deductive reasoning        challenges for the player/user of the puzzle to “solve” (see        FIG. 5 ).

Puzzle Goal or Objective:

Arrange the 10 polyform puzzle pieces in a way that connects them in anunbroken circle according to the constraints set forth in the variousschematic cards.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 : Top-view perspective of the 10 polyform puzzle pieces. 1designates a circle protrusion connector. 2 designates a circleintrusion connector. 3 designates a square protrusion connector. 4designates a square intrusion connector. 5 designates the grouping ofthe 10 pieces in pairs in relation to the overall design as discussedfurther in the section under the heading “Non-Obvious Nature ofInvention.”

FIG. 2 : Perspective view of nearly fully assembled puzzle. 6 refers tothe puzzle's nature in general. In this representation, the form iscircular. 7 highlights the center hole of an individual puzzle piece,correlating with the pegs of the base board.

FIG. 3 : Perspective view of cover/lid of product. 11 designates a holeto be placed over a like-shaped peg arising out of the base plate.

FIG. 4 : Perspective view of the base plate. 8 designates the pegs uponwhich the individual puzzle pieces fit. 9 designates the center of thebase plate upon which challenge cards are to be placed. 10 designatesthe peg through which the top plate is fitted for storage purposes.

FIG. 5 : Front and back view of challenge cards. 12 represents aschematic line connecting two like colored puzzle pieces. 13 designatesa hole through which the large peg on the baseplate protrudes so as tokeep the challenge card seated properly. 14 represents an encoded hint(decoded via red transparent filter) revealing the color of the twopieces connected by the schematic line.

NOVELTY OF INVENTION

Heretofore, jigsaw puzzle pieces or manipulatives have been used inpuzzles in only one of two distinct ways.

-   -   1. As components of an overall picture or 3-dimensional figure        to be put together by the consumer (requiring visual        discrimination and memory skills to various degrees of        performance).    -   2. As pieces of a “brain teaser” in which the connecting,        disconnecting, movement, etc. of the pieces appears simplistic        but is rendered difficult by some complicating additional        feature existing in the design of the work (requires mechanical        skills and/or creative thinking to solve).

There are three related attributes of the present invention that areboth novel as well as fundamental to its function and purpose. Thesecore features are heretofore undocumented.

Given the complexity of the developmental process of the presentinvention, they are also presumed unprecedented. These features are asfollows:

-   -   1. The rendering of the classic jigsaw puzzle piece into a        definable polyform set.    -   2. The utilization of said polyform set as the primary        components of a reasoning task that is inherently deductive in        nature.    -   3. In connection with feature #1, a color-coding system devised        for said polyform set which results in “playable” deductive        challenges.

Description of Play

The puzzle is played as follows: A schematic card is set in the centerof the baseplate in FIG. 3 on the surface labeled 9. The hole on thecard in FIG. 5 labeled 13 is placed over the protrusion on the baseplatelabeled 10. Lines on the schematic, such as that labeled 12 in FIG. 5 ,represent connections between two like-colored puzzle pieces, matched incolor according to color groups established in label 5 of FIG. 1 . Ifthe line on the schematic card is black or otherwise designated neutral,then the player knows that like-colored pieces go on either end of theline but does not know what specific color is to be placed in the givenpositions. If the line is colored, then the player knows what color isto place in the given positions but does not know the specific placementbetween the two pieces nor orientation thereof. The puzzle pieces areplaced around the borders of the schematic with the holes in the piecesas exemplified in FIG. 2 label 7 being placed over the pegs on thebaseplate as exemplified in FIG. 4 label 8. A challenge is completedsuccessfully when the player arranges all ten pieces around thebaseplate in a complete circle and according to the constraints of theschematic challenge card. See FIG. 2 label 6 for a nearly completedcircular connection of the puzzle pieces (not shown as on the baseplateor around a schematic, but representing the ability for the polyform setto fully connect back on itself). Regarding FIG. 5 : the challengeschematic is represented on the front of the card whereas the solutionis represented on the back of the card. “Hints” as exemplified in FIG. 5label 14 reveal colors of additional lines beyond those “given” at thestart of the puzzle through the means of text concealed behind a coloreddesign and revealed through a color filtering “decoder.” For conveniencein storing the puzzle, the cover represented in FIG. 3 has a holelabeled 11 which fits over the peg in FIG. 4 label 10 in order that thecover be secured to the base.

NON-OBVIOUS NATURE OF INVENTION

Understanding the development process of the present invention's premiseis key to recognizing its non-obvious nature. Such a description willalso facilitate a deeper understanding of what forms the invention maytake as a product. The spatial components that constitute theinvention's polyform set of manipulatives are as follows:

-   -   A circular jigsaw protrusion (connects only to the circular        intrusion; see diagram label 1)    -   A circular jigsaw intrusion (connects only to the circular        protrusion; see diagram label 2)    -   A square jigsaw protrusion (connects only to the square        intrusion; see diagram label 3)    -   A square jigsaw intrusion (connects only to the square        protrusion; see diagram label 4)

These four types of connections are arranged with either twoprotrusions, two intrusions, or a protrusion-intrusion combination puttogether on one manipulative, with the connectors facing opposingdirections relative to one other for the purpose of connecting to othercorresponding pieces in the polyform set. Thus, we achieve the followingsixteen permutations: (Notations: Circular Protrusion=Cp, CircularIntrusion=Ci, Square Protrusion=Sp, Square Intrusion=Si)

-   -   Cp/Cp, Cp/Ci, Cp/Sp, Cp/Si    -   Ci/Cp, Ci/Ci, Ci/Sp, Ci/Si    -   Sp/Cp, Sp/Ci, Sp/Sp, Sp/Si    -   Si/Cp, Si/Ci, Si/Sp, Si/Si

In one possible version of this invention (the version displayed in theincluded Figures) these permutations are further reduced tocombinations, i.e. we eliminate a permutation if it is the reverse ofanother permutation already included in the set (for example, Ci/Cp isconsidered the same as Cp/Ci, as one single piece combining a circularprotrusion and circular intrusion can be flipped” or manipulated inspace so as to represent either permutation of Ci/Cp or Cp/Ci). We thenare left with the following ten combinations, which represent the piecesof the version of the puzzle as displayed in the included Figures:

-   -   Cp/Cp, Cp/Ci, Cp/Sp, Cp/Si    -   Ci/Ci, Ci/Sp, Ci/Si    -   Sp/Sp, Sp/Si    -   Si/Si

These ten pieces are then matched and colored in subsets of two (seediagram label 5) in order that they facilitate the creation of deductivereasoning challenges communicated via color-coded schematics (see FIG. 5for an example of two such schematics). The process of matching andcolor-coding involved the following mathematical and deductive process:The geometric features of the polyform set were converted to numericalvalues in order that they be “workable” mathematically. A positive valuewas assigned to each protrusion, and its correlating intrusion wasassigned a negative value equal in absolute value to its positivecorrelate (i.e., Cp=1, Ci=−1, Sp=2, Si=−2). The total value of acombination was then computed (combination Ci/Ci would, for example,equal a total value of −2). Pairs of individual manipulatives were thenmade based on pairing like absolute values. For instance, −2 (Ci/Ci) and2 (Cp/Cp) were paired. Based on this process, the following pairs weremade:

-   -   Cp/Ci & Sp/Si    -   SCi/Sp & Cp/Si    -   Cp/Cp &Ci/Ci    -   Cp/Sp & Ci/Si    -   Sp/Sp & Si/Si

It was crucial for the purpose of schematic generation that each matchedsubset of two pieces be able to connect within itself in at least oneconfiguration. One of the five paired sets did not meet this criteria,and therefore two subsets had to be reordered strategically. Thespecific subsets to be reordered were chosen based on analysis of thegeometric features of each subset in relation to the other subsets. Thechosen reordering resulted in a polyform set of ten pieces grouped infive subsets that are conceptually “parallel” or “symmetrical” in termsof geometrical features when compared to the other subsets. Todemonstrate this conceptual symmetry,” the reasoning behind subset pairsis included hereafter.

The specific subset needing reordered was that of Cp/Ci matched withSp/Si (geometrically parallel, yet not connectable within the subset).The reordering of this set with another strategically selected setresulted in the following 5 subsets (visually represented in FIG. 1diagram 5):

-   -   Cp/Cp & Ci/Ci    -   Sp/Sp & Si/Si    -   Cp/Sp & Cp/Ci    -   Ci/Si & Sp/Si    -   Ci/Sp & Cp/Si

The reasoning behind these pairings is as follows:

-   -   One subset consists of all circle connectors (Cp/Cp & Ci/Ci)        compared to its parallel, a subset of all square connectors        (Sp/Sp & Si/Si). Both subsets contain a double protrusion        manipulative and a double intrusion manipulative.    -   One subset contains both kinds of protrusions on one        manipulative, whereas its parallel contains both kinds of        intrusions on one manipulative (Cp/Sp compared to Ci/Si).        Meanwhile, the other pieces in the subsets are parallel in that        one piece contains an intrusion and protrusion of circles,        whereas its parallel contains an intrusion and protrusion of        squares.    -   The remaining subset is the “odd one out” so to speak, in that        there are only 5 subsets in total and therefore it has no        parallel subset. This is the most interesting subset of all in        that conceptual “symmetry” is nonetheless maintained for the        polyform subsets overall given that this is the only subset that        has two different configurations in which it can connect within        itself, and those configurations are parallel in conceptual form        to one another. In one configuration, a square protrusion and        square intrusion are on the terminal ends of the connected        subset, and in the other configuration we see the parallel form        of circle connectors on the terminal ends of the connected        subset (an intrusion on one end and protrusion on the other).

Based on the inventor's experimentation, this specific grouping of thepolyform manipulatives results in the most interesting and varieddeductive reasoning challenges as well as the most visually appealingchallenge schematics.

1. A deductive reasoning puzzle which implements physical manipulativesor the dynamic digital representation thereof, which said manipulativesconsist of dual feature “connections” or pairings placed together on onepiece (two ends being matchable in a way, such as color-matchable,number-matchable, geometrically-matchable or connectable, or other typesof matching techniques), which said manipulatives represent all possibleten combinations or sixteen permutations of the features, in which saidmanipulatives are to be connected, matched, or otherwise arrangedtogether relative to one another according to constraints provided ineither visual schematics, written descriptions, or other possiblerepresentations of constraints.
 2. The deductive reasoning puzzleaccording to claim 1 in which schematics rely upon the pairing ofindividual pieces into groups of two (if total set represents possiblepermutations) up to groups of four (if total set represents possiblecombinations) via any practical means, such as color-coding, numbercombinations, letter combinations, shape combinations, etc.
 3. Thedeductive reasoning puzzle according to claim 1 in which pieces are tobe arranged linearly or nearly linearly, or in other words, in which thepieces do not connect on the two terminal ends of the entire connectedor arranged set.
 4. The deductive reasoning puzzle according to claim 1in which pieces are to be arranged or connected in a fully continuousmanner, whether a circle or other shape, symmetrical or asymmetrical.